Supreme Court Scrutinises ED’s Article 32 Petition After Mamata Banerjee’s Alleged Interference in I‑PAC Raids — UPSC Current Affairs | March 18, 2026
Supreme Court Scrutinises ED’s Article 32 Petition After Mamata Banerjee’s Alleged Interference in I‑PAC Raids
The Supreme Court questioned West Bengal’s challenge to the Directorate of Enforcement’s writ under Article 32 after CM Mamata Banerjee allegedly obstructed raids on I‑PAC’s Kolkata office. The bench highlighted the need for legal remedies against such executive interference, raising federal‑centre balance issues.
The apex Supreme Court examined a petition filed by the ED under Article 32 . The petition arose after West Bengal’s Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee allegedly barred the agency’s raids on the Kolkata office of political consultancy I‑PAC in January 2026. Key Developments The bench, led by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra , asked the West Bengal government whether the ED could merely “look and watch” when a chief minister obstructs statutory investigations. West Bengal, represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan , challenged the maintainability of the ED’s writ, arguing that the agency is neither a "body corporate" nor a "legal person" capable of invoking Article 32. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the CM’s actions hindered a lawful probe into a ₹2,742‑crore coal‑smuggling case, emphasizing the public‑interest nature of the investigation. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal for the CM asserted that the ED does not possess a fundamental right to investigate; its powers stem from the PMLA . The court scheduled the next hearing for 24 March 2026 and hinted at referring the matter to a Constitution Bench. Important Facts • The raids targeted alleged records of the Trinamool Congress, the ruling party in West Bengal, which allegedly were taken by ED officials. • The West Bengal police had earlier stayed the ED’s probe, citing concerns over election‑related data theft. • The petition raises critical questions about the scope of central agencies’ powers versus state autonomy, especially under the federal structure enshrined in the Constitution. UPSC Relevance 1. Centre‑State Relations : The case illustrates tensions between Union agencies and state governments, a recurring theme in GS 2 (Polity) concerning federalism and the distribution of powers. 2. Judicial Review : Understanding Articles 32, 226, and 131 helps aspirants grasp the hierarchy of judicial remedies and the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (GS 2). 3. Enforcement Agencies : Knowledge of the ED’s statutory basis under the PMLA and its limitations is essential for GS 3 (Economy) and GS 2 (Polity). 4. Political Consultancy : The role of firms like I‑PAC in electoral politics underscores the intersection of politics, law, and ethics (GS 4). Way Forward The Supreme Court is likely to clarify whether a central enforcement agency can invoke Article 32 for institutional protection, or whether such matters must be pursued through the Union government under Article 131 . A definitive ruling will shape future centre‑state dynamics, the operational latitude of agencies like the ED, and the legal safeguards against executive overreach during elections.
Login to bookmark articles
Login to mark articles as complete
Overview
Supreme Court’s verdict on ED’s Article 32 petition will redefine centre‑state power balance
Key Facts
12 March 2026: Supreme Court bench led by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the ED’s petition under Article 32.
The ED sought protection of its statutory powers after CM Mamata Banerjee barred raids on I‑PAC’s Kolkata office in January 2026.
The investigation concerns a ₹2,742‑crore coal‑smuggling case pursued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
West Bengal, represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan, contended that the ED is not a "body corporate" or "legal person" capable of invoking Article 32.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the CM’s interference obstructed a lawful probe, invoking public‑interest and fundamental rights.
The court scheduled the next hearing for 24 March 2026 and hinted at referring the matter to a Constitution Bench to decide on Article 31(2) vs Article 131 jurisdiction.
Background & Context
The dispute pits the Union's enforcement agency, created under the PMLA, against a state government's claim of autonomy, raising questions on the reach of Article 32 (original jurisdiction for fundamental rights) versus Article 131 (disputes between Union and states). It underscores the role of judicial review in federal India and the legal standing of statutory bodies.
UPSC Syllabus Connections
GS2•Statutory, regulatory and quasi-judicial bodiesPrelims_GS•Constitution and Political SystemGS4•Case Studies on ethical issuesGS2•Functions and responsibilities of Union and StatesGS2•Constitutional posts, bodies and their powers and functionsPrelims_GS•Public Policy and Rights IssuesGS2•Representation of People's ActEssay•Philosophy, Ethics and Human ValuesGS2•Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioningGS3•Role of external state and non-state actors in security challenges
Mains Answer Angle
GS 2 – Centre‑State Relations: Discuss how the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 32/131 will impact the balance of power between Union agencies and state governments, especially in the context of electoral investigations.